Check against delivery Intersessional open-ended intergovernmental working group to develop the modalities of the universal periodic review mechanism established pursuant to decision 1/103 Report on progress by the Facilitator and Vice-President: H.E. Mr. Mohammed Loulichki, Permanent Representative of Morocco 15 March 2007 Human Rights Council, Fourth Session Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen, In my capacity as Facilitator, I have the honour of reporting on the progress made in the context of the intersessional open-ended intergovernment working group established to develop the modalities of the universal periodic review mechanism since the conclusion of the Council’s third session in December 2006. As you are all aware, the working group met in its second formal session from 12 to 15 February 2007. The working group had before it a non-paper, which I had prepared on the basis of my preliminary conclusions (document A/HRC/3/3) and on our discussions to date. The non-paper was structured according to the six elements for discussion, which I had previously announced at the informal consultations held on 2 August 2006 and on which all previous discussions and written contributions had been submitted, namely: Basis of review; Principles and objectives of review; Periodicity and order of review; Process and modalities of review; Outcome of the review; Follow-up to the review. The non-paper built upon the emerging elements of convergence that had been previously listed in the above-mentioned preliminary conclusions, and outlined, wherever possible, compromise proposals, while identifying a limited number of specific issues requiring further discussions and consideration. The non-paper also presented three concrete options on possible modalities for UPR, which were based on all such proposals previously put forward by all stakeholders and were intended to advance and focus the discussions in the working group. The working group concluded its work on Thursday, 15 February 2007 after five productive meetings. We heard from a variety of stakeholders and held focused and interactive discussions on the various elements contained in the non-paper, in particular on the elements requiring further consideration. In this regard, I would like to refer particularly to our discussion on the three options annexed to the non-paper which, while outlining how the general architecture of UPR could be established in concrete terms, also highlighted the divergence of views that remain on a number of key issues, which I will address in more detail shortly. Since the conclusion of our work almost one month ago, I have fully reflected on our discussions and engaged into bilateral discussions with representatives of different groups and with individual interested countries to consider various issues in more detail and to explore possible areas of compromise. I have also taken note of specific drafting suggestions provided to me by some interested delegations. On this basis, and given that our discussions have progressed to a relatively advanced stage, you now have before you a revised non-paper, which attempts to both further solidify and build upon the elements of convergence, as well as to narrow those elements requiring further consideration. The revised non-paper also includes new or revised compromise proposals in several areas - some of which are intended to move various elements requiring further consideration into the category of convergence so as to further advance our work. I will not go through in detail all the changes and revisions contained in the revised non-paper as these are clearly delineated in the document before you. I would simply wish, however, to highlight a few key points. - I have retained the two options on periodicity (either four or five years) in the revised non-paper as this issue requires more discussion in the future. I am confident, however, that we can work together to find common agreement on one or the other term of periodicity. - With regard to the process and modalities of review, I have incorporated the comments made within the working group to elaborate and slightly revise the proposals with regard to the three sources of information for the review, namely: i) A report prepared by the State concerned on the basis of general guidelines to be adopted by the Council and any other information considered relevant by the State concerned; ii) A compilation by OHCHR, containing information in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other relevant official United Nations documents; and iii) Additional credible and reliable information provided by other relevant stakeholders. - You will also find annexed to the non-paper two options on modalities on which our discussions should focus in the future. These options have been further elaborated upon taking into account the views expressed as well as the questions and concerns of a practical nature raised during the discussion, namely: Information management: The management of the information provided for the purpose of UPR was raised by some delegations. Whether the review is conducted solely in plenary (as in option one) or in two working groups (as in option two), a rapporteur or rapporteurs will be selected (two from each regional group so as to ensure due respect for geographic representation) from among the members of the Council or of the working groups to prepare the review outcome either for consideration by the working group and then by the Council plenary, or directly by the plenary. Time management: the amount of meeting time required for the conduct of the review and for the consideration and adoption of the review outcome. In this regard, while the scope and modalities of review and adoption of the outcome will need to be further examined, it is proposed that an additional 45 to 60 minutes of plenary meeting time will be needed to consider the outcome. You may wish to refer to the calculations presented for each option for a periodicity of either four or five years. We are now at a critical stage in our work as the one-year deadline by which the UPR mechanism should be established is looming before us. It is the moment in which we have to individually and collectively advance our discussions and to focus not just on building elements of convergence but on agreement. However, as I elaborated at the closing of the working group’s second session last month, there remain a number of issues on which there are still differences in views. These are: i) Whether the review will be conducted solely in the Council plenary or in working groups; ii) The role of the State under review in decision-making on the outcome of UPR; iii) The role of other stakeholders in the review process, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions. In this regard, one must further consider the possible scope of their participation and at what stage or stages of the review process. iv) The role of experts in the review process, whether Governmental or Independent, the scope and nature of their participation, and the stage of their possible involvement in the review process? These are key and important issues that will determine the outcome of this exercise and will have a decisive impact on the mechanism to be established. They should, in my view, therefore be the focus of our discussions on the future. Thus, in your comments and observations on the revised non-paper, I would particularly like to invite all of you to focus on these issues I outlined above so that we may, if possible, advance our discussion and thinking in this regard. I should like to note, however, that we should not focus on elaborating all possible modalities and details of the UPR mechanism. We should instead concentrate our efforts on developing the general architecture of UPR. Indeed, it should be borne in mind by all of us that the UPR mechanism will be in a stage of infancy and should naturally grow and evolve based on the lessons learned and experience gained. We should consider, therefore, that the mechanism can be reviewed in five years (perhaps coinciding with the conclusion of one review cycle) when the status of the Council is to be reviewed by the General Assembly in accordance with resolution 60/251. The main feature which meets the unanimous support of all stakeholders is that UPR is a universal, cooperative, non-confrontational and evolving mechanism that will genuinely serve the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights. Before concluding, allow me to thank all of the participants in the meetings of the working group, all of you in fact, for your constructive comments and for the positive manner in which we have considered and discussed the many complex issues before us. I certainly hope that our work together continues to be inclusive, transparent, results-oriented and constructive. I count on all of you to continue to participate and contribute actively in our joint endeavour. Thank you. ---   1